Post your ideas for a better Toronto.

[Archivist]

Comparing the number of city councillors in Toronto with US cities is difficult, because typically the incorporated bits of US cities are much smaller than Toronto. Miami has a population of 424,000, for instance, and if you were to add all the city councillors for the various incorporated cities surrounding Miami, I'm sure you'd end up with hundreds of councillors. The comparison is not useful.

The argument would be stronger if you look at, say, Ontario cities. Since Toronto has more councillors than Mississauga (11 councillors for 800,000, which is about one for every 72,000, while Toronto is around one for every 59,600), but has a lot fewer than, say, London, Ontario (14 for 350,000, or one for every 25,000). It's not an issue that I feel strongly about, one way or another. I only feel strongly that the US comparison is inappropriate.

 

[TraderinToronto]

Although I agree that Miami may not be good representation. But what about cities like Houston and Philadelphia which each have a city proper population of 2.2 million and 1.5 million respectively. Houston for example has only 14 councillors with a 2.2 million city proper poluation. Philly has a population of 1.5 million with only 10 city councillors. Toronto has a city proper population of 2.5 million with 44 city councillors. Do the math and we have much more city councillors than necessary.

Comparing the number of city councillors in Toronto with US cities is difficult, because typically the incorporated bits of US cities are much smaller than Toronto. Miami has a population of 424,000, for instance, and if you were to add all the city councillors for the various incorporated cities surrounding Miami, I'm sure you'd end up with hundreds of councillors. The comparison is not useful.

The argument would be stronger if you look at, say, Ontario cities. Since Toronto has more councillors than Mississauga (11 councillors for 800,000, which is about one for every 72,000, while Toronto is around one for every 59,600), but has a lot fewer than, say, London, Ontario (14 for 350,000, or one for every 25,000). It's not an issue that I feel strongly about, one way or another. I only feel strongly that the US comparison is inappropriate.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I don't think our sun is strong enough in this climate from late fall to spring to grow many crops so artificial light would be required so why not employ solar panels to help supply energy to the building? For half of the year we import produce from thousands of miles away to our supermarkets, not 50 miles. I don't know much about carbon footprints but it seems to me that buidling vertical farms are considerably more sustainable as opposed to shipping food from great distances.

dt,

You have to consider the vast quantities of energy used to build structures, particularly reinforced concrete structures. In most high-rises the energy and materials used to construct the edifice is equivalent to about 50 years of operation. This is fine and good for human uses, because structures would have to be built in any case, but for farming? It's probably more worthwile to just switch to a greater mix of locally-sourced food and import the rest off-season or even to plant community gardens and cultivate backyards (although this will never amount to a significant proportion of a city's food supply). I think you are also overestimating the generating capacity of solar power. Don't forget that solar requires large surface areas which a vertical farm, by definition, would not have.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

dt,

You have to consider the vast quantities of energy used to build structures, particularly reinforced concrete structures. In most high-rises the energy and materials used to construct the edifice is equivalent to about 50 years of operation. This is fine and good for human uses, because structures would have to be built in any case, but for farming? It's probably more worthwile to just switch to a greater mix of locally-sourced food and import the rest off-season or even to plant community gardens and cultivate backyards (although this will never amount to a significant proportion of a city's food supply). I think you are also overestimating the generating capacity of solar power. Don't forget that solar requires large surface areas which a vertical farm, by definition, would not have.

Hmm, fair enough points from yourself and afransen. I do however think that we should be discussing alternatives to the way we receive much of our food. I recall the truckers strike in France a few years ago which quickly cleared store shelves of food, in time climate change could alter where and how we get our food imported during off growing season in our climate (see California's drought for the past several years, snow/freezing temps. and great loss of citris crops in Florida twice in the past several years), the rapid rise with middle income earners in places like China and India with only so much land on the planet in order to grow things. I guess what concerns me is we aren't thinking forward to the future and potential problems with food supply (let's not even get into fresh water). Perhaps I'm just paranoid or I worry too much, and suddenly this isn't a "post your ideas for a better Toronto" discussion anymore.

 

[Glen]

Hipster Duck, I generally agree with the constraints you list for vertical farming. However, it is important to realize that the structural needs of a vertical farm are very different . Blake Kurasek shows an interesting example...

 

[afransen]

You skipped right over my suggestion of building a low-rise, high-intensity farm just outside a city. There is an alternative between a 50 story stacked greenhouse at Yonge and Eg and getting lettuce from Mexico. We could look to greenhouses located in Niagara or Leamington, which already grow many of the cucumbers, tomatos, peppers, eggplant, etc. that we eat in our grocery stores. There are many other crops that could potentially be grown this way, depending on the price of energy, including many lettuces, herbs, etc.

It's also worth considering that transportation is not inherently evil or environmentally negative. It may very well result in a higher energy input to try to grow certain crops in Canada during the winter, than to efficiently transport it from an area with abundant heat and light, such as California, Florida or Mexico. There was a time when high speed trains brought vegetables swiftly from Florida and other parts of the south to the Northeast US, and t was very energy efficient. It was the destruction of the freight rail industry in the US that ended such practices. If fuel prices were to rise sufficiently, there is potential for this to once again occur. Of course, none of this deals with the other environmental pressures faced in places like California. These will have to be address through the creation of more sustainable farming practices. It isn't impossible, though. Israel manages to export a great deal of food, despite being in an arid climate.

I think that ultimately, we need to price energy and environmental services (water, nutrient absorption, habita) in such a way that all the costs involved are included in the price. Our food supply chain is very efficient and highly responsive to financial incentives. It is a much better approach to look to put the correct incentives in place rather than try to force particular technological solutions, such as vertical farms. By all means, provide public funding to support R&D into the enabling technologies, so that it is an option. But don't try to mandate their use, whatever the cost. I think this is the single biggest mistake environmental activists make, and it is their undoing. You have to go after the incentives.

 

[Eug]

Not Toronto, but I thought this was interesting. Should make for a fascinating experiment.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...y-city-services-over-tax-hike/article1459348/

Tired of indiscriminate spending, questionable officials and unnecessary expenditures, the residents of one Colorado city have decided to end the era of big government in their municipality, even if it means mowing the grass at the local park themselves.

And so Monday, the 380,000 inhabitants of Colorado Springs, a city only 160 kilometres from Denver, will wake up in a town with only the most basic municipal services.

Come evening, one-third of the city's 24,000 streetlights will remain dark. Two police helicopters are listed for sale on the government website. Trash cans have been removed from city streets, replaced with signs asking residents to dispose of their trash at home.

Park workers will only mow local green spaces sporadically, and flowers will go unwatered.

The city recreation centres, indoor and outdoor pools and several museums will close permanently on March 31 unless private donors step in. More than 63,000 hours of bus service have been slashed and law-enforcement jobs have been left unfilled.

It all started when the nine-member city council of a conservative Colorado hub asked residents to approve a substantial property-tax increase last fall. They warned of drastic cuts to services if the measure failed, of closed community centres and untended park land, police layoffs and unfilled potholes.

The tax, which would have added $27.6-million to city coffers, was rejected by more than 65 per cent of voters.

“We called their bluff,” resident Douglas Bruce says. “They need to downsize. It's a good thing.”

Rather than worrying about their city falling into disrepair, most citizens are unfazed by the cuts and say they would rather sacrifice services than allow government mismanagement of their tax dollars. On a small scale, it is an experiment Washington should watch.

 

[kettal]

Considering the fuss that came with the closing of a few mouldy pools in Toronto, I'd say we're not ready for that.

 

[adma]

And remember. That's Colorado Springs. Hyper-Republican, Focus On The Family central.

Even Doug Holyday would come across borderline pinko there.

 

[Eug]

Considering the fuss that came with the closing of a few mouldy pools in Toronto, I'd say we're not ready for that.

I don't think Toronto is ready for that either, but nonetheless it will be fascinating.

I'm just amused that the public called city council's bluff for a change. If there is success in that experiment on the part of the public, then perhaps other municipalities might learn that there are actually political consequences to their spendy ways. Then again, if it blows up in the public's face, we may get even more smug councillors convinced they need to waste even more money every chance they get.

 

[Hipster Duck]

The Colorado Springs experiment seems interesting (in a bad, schadenfreude way). Why did the libertarian demand that the city be in charge of road repairs? Why should park maintenance be necessarily outsourced but the extremely costly business of maintaining the phyical infrastructures upon which private cars travel be a necessary government expense, even for people who would have to look left to see Ron Paul?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Because that segment of the population probably drives (thus it affects them) but couldn't be bothered to use libraries, community centres, etc. At the end of the day, it's really about what's beneficial to them.

AoD

 

[Glen]

The Colorado Springs experiment seems interesting (in a bad, schadenfreude way). Why did the libertarian demand that the city be in charge of road repairs? Why should park maintenance be necessarily outsourced but the extremely costly business of maintaining the phyical infrastructures upon which private cars travel be a necessary government expense, even for people who would have to look left to see Ron Paul?

Because most taxpayer own lawn mowers, not paving equipment.

 

[Hipster Duck]

^That's only part of the answer. Obviously private paving companies that do have access to paving equipment can be recruited to do the job by some collective of residents who chip into some sort of general fund. I imagine that most of the park maintenance will not be done by Joe in his 3.5hp Black and Decker, but by professional "Weed Man"-like lawn care companies whose proprietors are somehow involved, whether philantropically or for profit.

 

[Parsnips]

Hope I'm not repeating anything, I didn't read every post in detail:

1. Finish the Sheppard Line and build more subways lines
2. Bury hydro wires in suburban areas
3. Massive renovations to "ugly" stations. Make them themed to their surroundings
4. New landmark of sorts...we need to save our falling tourism
5. Redesign the downtown districts (entertainment, fashion, etc) to be more "user-friendly" and provide unique features for within these districts
6. More city squares in downtown locations